[asantos3]

As the title says I'm trying to find define myself, I'll do some crossposting from my introduction.

My believe in modern liberalism is quite high when it comes to individual liberty - legalizing cannabis, abortion during the first weeks of pregnancy, gay marriage and adoption, voluntary euthanasia, prostitution between adults, separation between state and church, ... - but it differs in the free market ideology.

I like the idea of a capitalistic system where the state is reduced to the essential minimum but it just doesn't work, the government needs at least minimal control over the market to prevent monopolies and establish some degree of a regulated market, this includes labor law, environmental protection, anti-discrimination and prevention of lobby groups. It also needs to retain several key public goods such as libraries, roads, schools, hospitals, water systems.

Which means I'm a modern liberal who believes in an mixed economy tending to capitalism (?). I think that makes me a liberal socialist (tried to find something along the lines of my ideology and found that but don't know quite yet).

What do you think I'm?

[Decky]

You are a social democrat.

Also, liberal socialism.

[asantos3]

You are a social democrat.

Also, liberal socialism.

Sounded a good name for it :V

Are you sure though? I'm pretty sure they aren't that liberal on the social scale.

[slybaldguy]

How do you feel about the nanny state? Do you support affirmitive action?

[Decky]

Are you sure though? I'm pretty sure they aren't that liberal on the social scale.

Not only are you prety sure you are also pretty wrong.

You are a social democrat, and yes they are liberal socially.

[fuser]

Yup a social democrat, they are the historical defensive fortification guarding liberalism against the march of socialism.

[asantos3]

How do you feel about the nanny state? Do you support affirmitive action?

Nanny state is required in some degree, e.g. ban smoking in indoor public places, drinking and legal smoking age, seatbelt laws, ... Without leaving aside individual freedom is important that a government prevents (self) harm, the greatest example is second-hand smoke and recklessness of some people.

Yes.

Not only are you prety sure you are also pretty wrong.

You are a social democrat, and yes they are liberal socially.

Yup a social democrat, they are the historical defensive fortification guarding liberalism against the march of socialism.

I guess I don't like the party that represents social democracy in my country then. There's plenty of evidence of personal favoritism and high level corruption.

[fuser]

Which country you are from?

Also personal favouritism and corruption can infect any party regardless of ideology, in my country number of socialist party have fallen to nepotism but even though I dislike those socialist "parties", I am still a socialist.

[asantos3]

Portugal

[Decky]

Odd, so you have a non socialy liberal party that explicitly identifies as social democrat? Very strange.

[asantos3]

Odd, so you have a non socialy liberal party that explicitly identifies as social democrat? Very strange. :?:

What? Are you talking about this guys? I was talking about this guys, those are conservationists and:

Due to the Salazarist connotation of the term “right-wing”[23] (and all terms connected: “liberal”, “conservative”, etc.) after the Carnation Revolution, the little atractiveness of economic liberalism in European politics,[24] no specific Liberal or Conservative parties were formed in post-1974 Portugal, except the experiences of the Catholic Action-monarchist Liberal Party in 1974[25] and the centrist liberal Democratic Renovator Party, so they started working inside the PSD. This strategy of joining “socialism and liberalism under the same hat”[12] was especially successful during Cavaco Silva’s leadership, when the party gave up its candidacy to the Socialist International and became member of the Liberal International and European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party (ELDR) and Liberal and Democratic Reformist Group, leaving the international and the European party and group in 1996 to join the Christian Democrat International (today Centrist Democrat International), the European People's Party and the European People's Party-European Democrats. Since then the Liberal-Social democrat rift (or even the Liberal-Conservative-Populist-Social democrat rift) has plagued the party’s cohesion and actions.

[Decky]

Well you said:

Are you sure though? I'm pretty sure they aren't that liberal on the social scale.

So I just wondered if you had some sort of bizare reactionary social democrat party.

[asantos3]

So I just wondered if you had some sort of bizare reactionary social democrat party.

Some stuff they do isn't the kind of social ideology I represent, e.g. when our liberal/libertarian party tried to legalize the growth of cannabis (possession for personal use is legal within a certain limit) they stayed neutral. So just little things find odd...

[slybaldguy]

You are definitely a social democrat. Your position on weed and euthanasia is not shared by all social democrats. This will change in the next decade or so as the younger generation are all for it.

[asantos3]

You are definitely a social democrat. Your position on weed and euthanasia is not shared by all social democrats. This will change in the next decade or so as the younger generation are all for it.

Thank you. I guess I need to move to the socialist forum.


By the way, I was checking out our new party and they define themselves as:

(...) a progressive party whose ideological heritage becomes the confluence and renewal of the four main currents: left libertarianism, political environmentalism, democratic socialism and the European democratic project.

I'm interested on your views on this definition, how does that work being a libertarian and a democratic socialist party?

[Decky]

Thank you. I guess I need to move to the socialist forum.

We are about to see some fun and games.

[SpaciousBox]

Hey asantos3, welcome to the forum.

You and I are probably in agreement on most things. I also consider myself to be a social Liberal backing a state that protects workers and enforces market competition. That position is not a socialist one though, as socialism is defined by the collective ownership of the means of production - something that isn't possible within the confines of a capitalist system. It is quite possible that your views may lead you towards socialism one day, but for now I'd say you’re a Liberal Democrat. A lot of the ideological definitions have been warped by modern culture and political sensationalism, so there are plenty of people who may call you a socialist. That said… a lot of people call Obama a socialist, so don’t always listen to what people say.

There are a few other posters who share your position, so looking forward to hearing some of your solutions for changing the world.